Message-ID: <38837377.985BD716@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:54:31 -0800
From: "g3kev" <g3kev@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Organization: Netscape Online member
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Transatlantic
References: <388286AC.2ACD0DEE@netscapeonline.co.uk> <02ed01bf605e$2d643f00$0600a8c0@main>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>


Dave wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Assuming that we're sticking to 1W erp then what does it matter how big the
> antenna is as long as the power is sufficient to  give the required erp?

There is a big difference in the radiation pattern and angle of take off between
a high vertical antenna and a very low antenna given the same rf power to the
antenna. 1 Watt erp from a dummy load or low horizontal wire is hardly the same
as 1 Watt erp from a vertical antenna at 120 ft. There is also the RX
consideration especially on long haul signals. At LF the delivery system ie
ANTENNA is the most important factor. Even with large towers, and high elaborate
antennas, which are still physically small relative to 137 khz and a limit of 1W
erp, one has to realize the limitations, but at least there might be a chance.
73 de Mal/G3KEV


>
> CFH peaks 33dB above the noise regularly (in 100Hz filter). If its erp is
> around 8kW as rumoured then a 4W erp signal would be on the noise level,
> normal good copy, and a 1W signal would be 6dB down. No problem for
> Spectrogram.
>
> There is a VE station building for the band and he intends to try some tests
> next "fall" from VO1. That should do it!
>
> 73 de G3YXM.